DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abraham (Pub No 20150146607)
Regarding claim 1,
Abraham teaches a first device associated with a second device in a wireless network, the first device comprising:
at least one station (STA) affiliated with the first device; (STA para [0046])
a processor coupled to the at least one STA, the processor configured to:
establish one or more links between the first device and the second device; (interpreted as A communication link that facilitates transmission from the AP 104 to one or more of the STAs 106 may be referred to as a downlink (DL) 108, and a communication link that facilitates transmission from one or more of the STAs 106 to the AP 104 may be referred to as an uplink (UL) 110, see para [0046])
transmit one or more physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) comprising a plurality of frames to the second device; and (interpreted as Data units exchanged by the AP 104 and the STA 106 may include control information or data, as discussed above. At the physical (PHY) layer, these data units may be referred to as physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs). In some aspects, a PPDU may be referred to as a packet or physical layer packet, see para [0088])
receive a first frame from the second device that includes information on a second frame that is missing. (interpreted as FIG. 5a, for example, STA 504 and STA 506 did not receive the DL MC frame 520 (noted by the "failed receipt" indication), thus STA 504 responds with NAK 540, and STA 506 responds with NAK 550. Both NAKs 540, 550 may identify the missing DL MC frame 520 by indicating the associated sequence number(s) or at least an identification of the corresponding NAK request 530, see para [0095])
Regarding claim 11,
Abraham teaches a first device associated with a second device in a wireless network, the first device comprising:
at least one STA affiliated with the first device; a processor coupled to the at least one STA, the processor configured to: establish one or more links between the first device and the second device; (interpreted as Data units exchanged by the AP 104 and the STA 106 may include control information or data, as discussed above. At the physical (PHY) layer, these data units may be referred to as physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs). In some aspects, a PPDU may be referred to as a packet or physical layer packet, see para [0088])
receive one or more physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) comprising a plurality of frames from the second device; and (interpreted as Data units exchanged by the AP 104 and the STA 106 may include control information or data, as discussed above. At the physical (PHY) layer, these data units may be referred to as physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs). In some aspects, a PPDU may be referred to as a packet or physical layer packet, see para [0088])
identify a first frame that is missing in the one or more PPDUs. (interpreted as AP 104 may send an MC-NAK request, including the most recently transmitted multicast packet sequence number or numbers, or other identifying characteristics. The receiving STAs 106 that did not received the latest sequence number(s) identified in the MC-NAK request, may respond to the request allowing the AP 104 to take appropriate action and retransmit the identified frame or frames, see para [0052])
Regarding claim 2 and 12,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 1, wherein the STA is an access point (AP) STA or a non-AP STA. (AP para [0052])
Regarding claim 3 and 13,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the second frame that is missing to the second device. (interpreted as AP 104 to take appropriate action and retransmit the identified frame or frames, see para [0052])
Regarding claim 4,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a next set of frames in a transmit queue to the second device instead of retransmitting the second frame that is missing. (interpreted as In some embodiments, the loss of a single frame may be trivial and retransmission of the DL MC frame 560 may not be required. In such a case, the AP 502 may instead adjust the MCS as needed for following transmissions, see para [0096])
Regarding claim 7 and 18,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 5, wherein the first frame and the second frame are received and transmitted on a same link. (interpreted as Accordingly, the AP 502 may retransmit the DL MC frame 560 (shown in dashed lines) to the STAs 504, 506 that sent NAKs 540, 550, see para [0096])
Regarding claim 14,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to receive the first frame from the second device. (interpreted as Data units exchanged by the AP 104 and the STA 106 may include control information or data, as discussed above. At the physical (PHY) layer, these data units may be referred to as physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs). In some aspects, a PPDU may be referred to as a packet or physical layer packet, see para [0088])
Regarding claim 15,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured ignore the first frame and transmit the plurality of frames to an upper layer within the first device. (interpreted as In some embodiments, the loss of a single frame may be trivial and retransmission of the DL MC frame 560 may not be required. In such a case, the AP 502 may instead adjust the MCS as needed for following transmissions, see para [0096])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 16-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (Pub No 20150146607) further in view of Patil (Pub No 20240008039)
Regarding claim 5 and 16,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 3, however does not teach wherein the first device comprises at least two STAs affiliated with the first device, and the processor is configured to establish at least two links between the first device and the second device.
Patil teaches wherein the first device comprises at least two STAs affiliated with the first device, and the processor is configured to establish at least two links between the first device and the second device. (interpreted as the non-AP MLD 130 and the AP MLD 135 may transmit or receive the feedback information 240 via the first radio frequency link 205 in accordance with using the first radio frequency link 205 as a control and management link to support data communications via the second radio frequency link 210, see para [0071])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the to modify the system taught by Abraham with the multiple link as taught by Patil with the motivation being to provide increase reliability with multiple links.
Regarding claim 6 and 17,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 5, however does not teach wherein the first frame is received on a first link between a first STA affiliated with the first device and a first STA affiliated with the second device and the second frame is transmitted on a second link between a second STA affiliated with the first device and a second STA affiliated with the second device.
Patil teaches wherein the first frame is received on a first link between a first STA affiliated with the first device and a first STA affiliated with the second device and the second frame is transmitted on a second link between a second STA affiliated with the first device and a second STA affiliated with the second device. (interpreted as At 345, the non-AP MLD 130 and the AP MLD 135 may communicate one or more data messages via the second radio frequency link in accordance with the identifying information and the control information communicated via the first radio frequency link, see para [0082])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the to modify the system taught by Abraham with the multiple link as taught by Patil with the motivation being to provide increase reliability with multiple links.
Regarding claim 8 and 19,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 5, however does not teach wherein the first frame and the second frame are received and transmitted on different links.
Patil teaches wherein the first frame and the second frame are received and transmitted on different links. (interpreted as The retransmissions may be performed via the first radio frequency link 205 or via the second radio frequency link 210, see para [0071])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the to modify the system taught by Abraham with the multiple link as taught by Patil with the motivation being to provide increase reliability with multiple links.
Regarding claim 9,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 3, however does not teach wherein the second frame includes a field indicating a link identifier (ID) of a link for which the second frame corresponds to.
Patil teaches wherein the second frame includes a field indicating a link identifier (ID) of a link for which the second frame corresponds to. (interpreted as non-AP MLD 130 may provide a buffer status for the P2P communication, which may include a bandwidth-time product or a link identifier, or both, see para [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the to modify the system taught by Abraham with the link id as taught by Patil with the motivation being to identify communication links.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (Pub No 20150146607) further in view of Fang (Pub No 20230208774)
Regarding claim 10 and 20,
Abraham teaches the first device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein two or more PPDUs are separated by a first interframe space (IFS) that is longer than a short interframe space (SIFS).
Fang teaches wherein two or more PPDUs are separated by a first interframe space (IFS) that is longer than a short interframe space (SIFS). (interpreted as shorter xIFS (T.sub.P) shorter than xIFS t.sub.g, fig. 3A. Also see Note: the T.sub.p time should be smaller than the time gap between the enhanced CTS frame and the first DL PPDU, T.sub.p < T.sub.g. For example, T.sub.p=SIFS and T.sub.g=PIFS., para [0058])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the to modify the system taught by Abraham with the link id as taught by Patil with the motivation being to identify communication links.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461 /HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights